When the material sciences are to the point where a lightweight container can sustain Earth atmospheric pressure from crushing down on it, we'll have a practical way to take off vertically without prompting your neighbours to invest in surface to air missiles when you crank the engine on one of these in the morning on your daily commute.

The Bad Astronomer writes: The viral video showing what looked like a meteorite falling past a skydiver made quite a splash, with many people assuming it was true. However, further analysis shows that it's also perfectly consistent with being a small (1-3 cm) rock that fell out of the parachute itself, which is a far more likely explanation.

The errors match those gotten with a borked cookie. Also, not knowing there was an outage, I signed my account out, but it no longer recognizes my password nor sends the reset email(I know my p/w absolutely, was just testing the reset), effectively locking me out entirely.

I have a sinking "we've been hacked" feeling. Otherwise, I suppose I'll just have to be more productive today!

It would be useful if you educated yourself about the topic at hand before commenting on it(yes, I know, "You must be new here").

OnLive and Gaikai aren't multiplayer systems. Rather, you pay to play a game from a remote location, presumably on some powerful rack mounted hardware, which would stream the video to your client software. The keypresses from the client being equally streamed upwards to the servers.

"So you believe "freedom of expression" isn't an absolute right? We're starting to chip away at the veneer."

Not sure that required much chipping. Seeing as I unabashedly said so in my own post: when I said "In regards to that separate argument, I do feel some limits on speech can be reasonably agreed"

So...kudos on failing to read my post. I'm sure you're very proud.

"Freedom of expression means they have a right to think that copyright law is wrong, that they have a right to go around saying that copyright law is wrong, but not to actually break copyright law."

Except they didn't. They provided a facilitator, no doubt. But never hosted any of the content. The law, as existed in Sweden during their trial, did not consider the act of simple facilitation illegal. So what they were doing was expression. Making a freedom of expression play here was entirely justified.

And I would certainly disagree with any law outlawing facilitation of a crime. By that token, VCRs and DVRs would have been outlawed long ago. If one were to extend that to other areas, one could claim kitchen knife makers are facilitating domestic/spousal murder and that fertilizer companies facilitate terrorism.

They are as nuanced as my statement would indicate. If the defamation is an untruth or a willful alteration of context meant(as in, literally "meant" as in the presence of mens rea) to cause literal, quantifiable harm to someone otherwise innocent of the accusation(s), I believe in the curbing of that instance of the defamer's freedom of expression in that case for the purpose of defending that person against that slander.

Erm, you seem to mistaken. Not sure if just shilling or willfully ignorant, but "free speech" means "free to speak", therefore the freedom to say whatever you want, anywhere(sorry, should I have prefaced that with a snarky "Clue:?")

Whether you feel that brings about too many problems(shouting "Fire!" in a crowded room) and wish to regulate certain portions of it is a different argument. But "Free speech" is exactly that.

In regards to that separate argument, I do feel some limits on speech can be reasonably agreed upon if it is required to protect the safety of people should that speech serve no other purpose but to harm the innocent by a literal and quantifiable definition of harm(in other words, "harmful thoughts" or anything upsetting a status quo should not be sufficient grounds on which to curb the freedom of expression, nor should one's "sensitivity" to a topic, but the aforementioned yelling of "Fire!" to incite a harmful panic upon a crowded room would be as would knowingly be taunting a diagnosed case of depression into committing suicide).

What you appear to be proposing is that economic interests if a party wishing to perpetually control distribution of data should also trump it. That is certainly an argument to be made, but please do not attempt to mask it,

The Nintendo Virtual Boy failed due to being an undesirable product to most of the population(not me, I loved the thing....but I do think it was a bad idea and definitely way to pricey when it came out). It had nothing to do with safety concerns.

Having said that, there was a study way back which claimed stereoscopic displays would negatively impact the development of children less than 6 years old. There was also the concern of staring at a dark+red display too long since the display(unlike the Occulous) didn't really focus to infinity(though it did have some adjustable optics). So the VB had a health warning about letting six year old children play. It also paused automatically every 10 mins of play time to allow the player to lift their head and focus.

This didn't help sales. But it wasn't a health decision so much as a public paranoia issue that had just a minimal impact on what was otherwise an unfeasible product anyways.

The study about affecting the very young have since been refuted, however, Nintendo still allows parents who fear it to lock out the 3D effect on the 3DS via parental locks. I have no idea if 3D TVs these days extend the same courtesy.

While software isn't quite as bad, I do know that physical goods can be doubled in price in Canada when the company in question is in the US, even when the company in question manufactures and/or ships from Canada.

This tactic is used to "subsidize" the price for Americans by making every other country pick up the slack. I quote "subsidize" since, in the end, it just means "We can maintain our very high profits while still pricing the competition out of existence within our very large domestic market."

I was claiming that the length or existence of copyright is affected not one iota by how vigorously defended it is. It's a bit of a stretch to say the claim related to "back damages" which may or may not be affected by previous enforcement efforts, since it is at the whim of the presiding judge.

1- It is not clueless to say they have to defend their patent or lose it. That's how it works. You lose patent and trademark protection if you don't try to defend any infringement you know about.Try again. Trademark works that way since trademark is basically perpetual. Patent protection doesn't work that way, though it should, since it'd take care of a lot of submarine patents and patent trolls who wait until a product is big to sue. So yeah, still clueless.

2- This isn't about patent, it is about copyright. They are different.On this we agree. But again, at the same time, copyright still doesn't get affected by attempts of enforcement. Only trademark does.

3- You can hate the current copyright laws, but that doesn't mean someone who acknowledges them is clueless.The irony in that statement is hilarious given the above.

4- Don't buy products from manufacturers who play this game. Do your research before purchasing.Noble gesture. Not sure it'll make even a dent in their bottom line, but noble nonetheless and something I try to do myself.

Minus the sort of over-embelishment which I would otherwise have dismissed as slashvertisement, and the somewhat over the top movie trailer they used, the underlying object, being a seemingly easy to assemble off the shelf volumetric display, is pretty darn cool.

While none of the technique is oevrly new, having it nicely put together using kit that is well within the means of many is not. Opening it up makes it better.